How to Say “No” or “Not Yet” to Missionary Candidates

Typically, when I’ve moved to a new town, I like to take some time to explore various routes from point A to point B. I’m always looking for the most expedient or efficient way to get where I am going. But sometimes, just when I think I’ve found the quickest way, something impedes my route and keeps me from getting where I’m going. It could be an accident up ahead, construction, or (what seems like the norm here in northwest Arkansas where I live) lots of dump trucks slowing down traffic! Whatever the cause for delay, it often results in me having to take a detour. We’re quick to think these detours are a bad thing, but they often lead us to see something new or different or to gain a new perspective of the town we are so familiar with.

This real-life occurrence is a real-life illustration of what many experience when going to the mission field. The clarion call to take the gospel from our Jerusalem to the ends of the earth is rightly matched with a sense of great zeal and urgency, but our desire to go doesn’t outweigh the need for careful assessment, examination, and preparation. On the need for healthy equipping of future missionaries, Eric Wright exhorts, “Zeal and youthful energy are needed, but they must be harnessed by the maturity and approach that is found in those who have already endured problems, trials, challenges, and disappointments with a measure of stability.”[1] We want to continue to encourage people to go, but even as someone senses the call to go, we must also be willing to say “Wait” while we work to adequately train them up.

I had the privilege over my thirteen years on staff in a local church to see our own members be sent out on the mission field—some for six months, others for two years, and one for her career. Even now, with the church our family are members of, I have had the opportunity to serve alongside our executive pastor of missions in training up a dozen members to go to the mission field. In that time, I’ve to say “No” or “Not yet” to future missionary candidates. Here are two examples:

A newly married couple who had some previous experience serving in South America desired to go back long-term. Working alongside the mission agency this couple planned to work with, we, as their sending church, began their assessment process. We evaluated areas of physical, spiritual, emotional, relational, and marital health, as well as their doctrinal convictions and cross-cultural experience. Through several months of assessment, we determined this couple was not a good fit for this role, and based on some of their personal convictions, they recognized they weren’t a good fit to serve alongside this agency. While they didn’t end up serving overseas, they have been able to live on mission cross-culturally here in their community.

Another example is a young man who was very gifted in linguistics, could speak four languages, and had a healthy amount of cross-cultural experience among internationals. His desire was to go for two years to serve in the North Africa/Middle East region. In working with the agency, I, as the missions pastor, was asked to fill out a personal assessment on him. That assessment, coupled with an initial application and assessment by the agency, revealed some areas in which he needed to grow. While this young man may have been approaching the road to “international going” with a green light, the closer he got, the light turned yellow. He very humbly approached us the next year, with a spirit of teachability, to walk through areas of personal discipleship and holiness with our elders. While I have since stepped into a new ministry role, I know that church recently welcomed him back after having faithfully served a two-year term in the NAME region.

Here are some practical steps your church can take to rightly assess members who desire to be missionaries and that will help you know whether to say “Yes,” “No,” or “Not yet.”

Have an Assessment Plan [2]

Churches need to work alongside their missionaries and in partnership with the agency during the pre-field stage to find the right ministry fit, which will aid in missionary retention on the field and strengthen the partnership among entities. As churches observe and evaluate a candidate’s readiness, they have the opportunity to note areas where they can extend care and establish metrics by which to do so. Mike Ironside writes, “church leaders should be able to observe these members engaging in missional living and cross-cultural missions. Their capacity to excel at these things is a key marker of whether or not they should go overseas.”[3] Other markers include spiritual disciplines, a spirit of humility, teamwork, faith, persistence, and flexibility.[4] Even though the assessment should be led by key church leadership, it is a whole-church process. As a missionary candidate is both known in relationship and their gifts are evidenced by a good cross-section of the church, the church can have collective confidence in that candidate’s call, character, and competency.

Churches can assess readiness by crafting a personal development plan through their pre-field correspondence with the mission agency and field personnel. Churches should consider including current or former missionaries in this assessment if they are able. Ironside encourages churches to focus on the spiritual health, emotional health, relational health, ministry skills, and personal health of the candidate as they develop this plan.[5] Churches should measure these areas in the pre-field assessment and use them as an ongoing metric for health and sustainability in the missionary’s life on the field. Using this development plan can help gauge if the missionary has zeal, wisdom, and experience, all of which are necessary to endure the challenges associated with cross-cultural missions. Check out the Personal Development Plan Resource from the Upstream Collective for more on this process.

Develop a Training Pipeline

As the church assesses and affirms missionaries, they then need to train and equip them for life on the mission field. They should not silo the training but, instead, seek to make it a whole-church effort to equip both goers and senders adequately.[6] An awareness of the spiritual battles missionaries face ought to spur churches to ensure and affirm a clear call and, in connection with mission agencies, provide thorough training. Eric Wright suggests that “Missionaries should be among our best-trained professionals. They represent Christ in new churches. They must know the Scriptures thoroughly, as well as have facility in missionary methodology.”[7] Wright presents the local church as the incubator for training in the Bible and doctrine.[8] One is able to determine readiness by observing a candidate’s life and doctrine as well as the faithfulness and fruit of their current ministry, especially as it relates to their engagement with other cultures.

This training must involve not only intake but also output. Rob Hay notes, “A high correlation for retention was found for selecting people who had a chance to ‘practice’ ministry in their local church.”[9] Missionary candidates, in partnership with the church, can clearly see their strengths and weaknesses as they engage in pre-field training. As in any field, the better one is prepared, the better they will perform and the longer they will serve.[10] Considering how one might not only survive but also thrive on the field can occur through a pre-field visit. This type of visit allows a candidate to evaluate their gifts and talents and whether the context matches their personal calling as they interact with the existing team in that location and assess their competency for the job requirements.[11] It also provides the opportunity for them to receive feedback from the field as they do their own self-assessment. This assessment and equipping in discerning calling, developing skills, and deciphering location are needed components for both the prospective missionary and sending church to mark out steps to the field and establish a plan for care on the field.

Be Humble, Both in Giving and Receiving a “No” or “Not Yet”

While the principles above ought to allow us to proceed forward with a green light in going, there are times where we come to a yellow or even red light. No one enjoys having to discourage someone from going overseas, but if churches want to send well, they will need a plan in place for knowing who should go and who should stay.

If you are the one saying “No” or “Not yet” to a potential missionary, remain humble as you encourage your candidate into a season of development. If you are the candidate receiving a “No” or “Not yet,” recognize that it isn’t an indicator of your inherent worth or your identity before God. You are secure in Christ, but the particulars of how, where, and when you serve him may change. It might simply be that there are areas where you need to experience growth and development, either personally or in a skill set, that will strengthen your future cross-cultural ministry. As David Sills has written on the missionary call, “How you wait is often more important than what you do while you wait. Seek to cultivate the right attitude. Learn to trust His heart when you cannot trace his hand . . . being conformed to the image of Christ is what you [ultimately] want.”[12]

Remember that Paul didn’t step off the Damascus Road and into Ephesus or Phillipi the next day. Rather, he trained for three years (Galatians 1:17–18) before he was set apart by the church in Antioch (Acts 13:1–3). And he even found a detour sign awaiting him from the Holy Spirit in Acts 16:6, which redirected him to Macedonia. God will get his people where they need to go. Our job as senders is to rely on his Spirit and the wisdom of others as we identify, assess, and develop potential missionaries and trust that he will show us when to say “Yes,” when to say “No,” and when to say “Not yet.”

This article was orginally published on The Upstream Collective.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Eric E. Wright, A Practical Theology of Missions: Dispelling the Mystery; Recovering the Passion (Leominster, UK: Day One, 2018), 185.

[2] Some reflections in “Have an Assessment Plan” and “Develop a Training Pipeline” are an adaptation from my published work, Holding the Rope: How the Local Church Can Care for Its Sent Ones.

[3] Mike Ironside, “The Sending Pipeline: From US Senders or Potential Goers to Committed Goers,” Upstream Collective, 27 September 2021, https://www.theupstreamcollective.org/post/the-sending-pipeline-from-us-senders-or-potential-goers-to-committed-goers.

[4] Wright, 190; and Rob Hay, Worth Keeping: Global Perspectives on Best Practice in Missionary Retention (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2007), 90.

[5] Ironside.

[6] Deborah M. Ford, “P(r)ay as they Go? Re-examining the Role of the Local Church in Cross-cultural Missionary Care,” Evangel 22.1 (2004): 4–10.

[7] Wright, 189.

[8] Ibid., 228.

[9] Hay, 72.

[10] Ibid., 109.

[11] Hay, 151.

[12] David Sills, The Missionary Call: Find Your Place in God’s Plan for the World (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2008), 110-11.